Cabinet shows power lies with ANC collective by Steven Friedman, 28 May 2014, 05:13 DOES the new Cabinet show that the power of the president within the governing party is in decline? In democracies, choosing a cabinet is obviously a much more open process than in closed societies, where big conclusions must be drawn from small signs, such as where ministers are seated at official events. But even in loud democracies like the South African one, where politicians love to leak information to the media, heads of government rarely say why they are choosing some and excluding others, and it is often necessary to read between the lines to know what is afoot. This Cabinet may be a good example. Formally, the Cabinet is appointed by the president alone. Prudent presidents will consult on their choices but the buck stops with the head of government. But several clues suggest that the choice was not President Jacob Zuma’s alone. For much of Sunday, senior government officials seemed unaware of when the Cabinet would be announced. If the president was solely in control of the process, this would be puzzling — he and his officials have known for months when a new Cabinet would have to be chosen. Why not simply set a time and announce it? The uncertainty would make sense if the Cabinet was a product of internal debate and horse-trading that dragged on longer than expected. This possibility is fuelled by media reports saying one minister was appointed over Zuma’s objections and that the African National Congress’s (ANC’s) alliance partners played a role in thwarting Tito Mboweni’s ministerial ambitions and shifting Pravin Gordhan from finance to co-operative governance. Media leaks are, of course, often suspect because they are planted by politicians with agendas. But, even in our leak-happy politics, it is not usual for Cabinet announcements to be preceded by leaks claiming division within the government. The reports suggest that this choice of Cabinet was more contested than in previous years. The most important evidence is the appointments themselves: the interesting feature is that ministers who were close to Zuma have been shunted sideways. One is Gordhan, whose influence as finance minister was strengthened by the fact that he was close to Zuma during apartheid and enjoys his confidence. More striking is the shift of Nathi Mthethwa and Siyabonga Cwele. Zuma, a former head of ANC intelligence, filled the top positions in the security cluster with allies from his home province — while he was forced to let go of police commissioner Bheki Cele, security cluster ministers seemed to enjoy presidential protection. They enjoy it no longer. While one of the new ministers, Nkosinathi Nhleko, hails from KwaZulu-Natal and the other, David Mahlobo, studied there, neither seems particularly close to Zuma. The Cabinet appointments are a result of a complicated balancing act in which managing the ANC’s divisions combined with some attempts to respond to organised public opinion by shifting the security ministers. The evidence suggests it was the result not of Zuma’s anticipation of what was needed to keep the peace but of an internal bargain. None of this means that Zuma had no say over the appointments — all the ministers who were considered close to him are still in the Cabinet, and Cele is now a deputy minister. But Zuma’s power to decide who holds executive office may well have declined since he chose his first Cabinet. If Zuma’s influence really is declining, one sign may be an end of ANC attempts to enhance the power of traditional leaders at the expense of rural citizens. Given Zuma’s stated enthusiasm for tradition, his influence may be a key reason why it introduced laws meant to give traditional leaders more say over their subjects. The first, the Traditional Courts Bill, ran up against opposition within the ANC and from rural activists. But another, which would give traditional leaders more say over land, is still in the pipeline. More generally, the probability that this Cabinet was chosen by the ANC further questions one of the more misleading themes in our politics — the tendency to overstate Zuma’s influence. SA is governed by a party, not an individual, and Zuma’s stamp on the government has been anything but heavy — departments have had more latitude to chart their own course than under previous presidents. He has made far less of a difference than most analysis suggests and the Cabinet appointment may confirm this. The ANC will not automatically become vastly different when Zuma steps down, and so its prospects do not depend on whether he stays or goes. The same can be said of South Africa. Our problems were not caused by Zuma — or, for that matter, a particular group of politicians. And so their solutions do not lie purely in replacing one or more individuals with others. The new Cabinet and the way in which it was chosen suggest that the fixation on individuals rather than political realities is now more misplaced than ever. • Friedman is director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy.
Posted on: Wed, 28 May 2014 07:13:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015